skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Dalai Lama Challenges the Idea of Neurologically Situated Consciousness In New Book
While it is certainly true that mainstream science insists that there must be a physical explanation for consciousness, the empirical evidence supporting this view is tenuous. Since scientists have devised objective means of measuring all kinds of physical phenomena, it is remarkable that no scientific instruments can detect whether or not consciousness is present in inorganic matter (e.g., computers or robots), in plants (e.g., insect-eating plants), or in animals (e.g., single cells, insects, human fetuses, or normal human adults). Given that consciousness is invisible to all known means of scientific measurement--unlike all other kinds of physical phenomena--the burden of proof for the physical status of consciousness should be on those who make this assertion, not on those who question it.
6 comments:
Nerdshit is good shit! Based on the name alone, I would never have given it a glance, so thanx for linking a subject of perennial interest to me. (Maybe being off-putting is part of the nerdshit idea.) Anyway, as to the DL on the brain and consciousness, don't get me started or you're looking at pages and pages of closely reasoned philosophical horseshit! (Slowly, slowly, your eyes are glazing over. You are getting very sleepy....)
Nerdshit is run out of Kansas, believe it or not!
Kansas seems to have interesting pockets of high intelligence (presnet company included, of course!) And, after all, T.S. Eliot was from St. Louis, which is right across the river (I think -- my geography of the area remains a bit hazy, even though I grew up in Oklahoma just south of y'all, which may explain a lot!)
Kansas seems to have interesting pockets of high intelligence (presnet company included, of course!)
Who, me? I'm in Missouri ... which is essentally the same thing, I guess.
None other than William Burroughs hailed from St. Louis. Somehow that cheers me up.
Who, me? I'm in Missouri ... which is essentally the same thing, I guess.
Hey, I did confess that my geography of the area was hazy!
Since scientists have devised objective means of measuring all kinds of physical phenomena, it is remarkable that no scientific instruments can detect whether or not consciousness is present in inorganic matter (e.g., computers or robots), in plants (e.g., insect-eating plants), or in animals (e.g., single cells, insects, human fetuses, or normal human adults).
*hisses at it like a vampire. Or Gollum*
"That logic is NOT The Precious! We hateses it, yes! It burneses us so and we hates it!"
Regarding burden of proof, um, no. You're the ones claiming there's a non-physical property. *You* prove it.
Bah.
Post a Comment